Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 1, Number 2, 1 March 1984 — Ariyoshi Double Talk [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Ariyoshi Double Talk

By Rodney Keliimahiai Burgess Trustee-at-Large, Vice Chairman

On Mar. 8, this office filed suit in First Circuit Court to enforce its equitable entitlement to 20 percent of the revenues derived from the use of ceded lands for harbors, airports, Sand lsland and the proposed Aloha Tower Development Corporation. Two prominent Honolulu attorneys, Boyce Brown and David Schutter, have been retained by theTrustees to represent OHA. At stake may be $10 million in additional annual revenues to OHA. These monies are desperately needed to implement OH A's master plan for education, eeonomie ventures, jobs, cultural projects, community projects and efforts to seek federal status and reparations. The State administration opposes the suit for the follo wing reasons: they (State) are concerned with the needs of all the people in the State (not only Hawaiians); airport and harbor ineome would violate bond covenants and jeopardize future bond issues; and the State has not eonsented to be sued. To begin, OHA has attempted overthe last three years to discuss the issue with the Governor, the Attorney General and the impacting State departments. In a nutshell, OHA has met with"institutional stubbornness" and apathy. The State has failed to even acknowledge the mandates of the Admission Act and the State Constitution whieh clearly state OHA is entitled to these revenues. Moreover, the State administration has made statements to our Trustees whieh amount to double talk and stalling tactics. An example is the Governor. He told the Trustees in two meetings that the current issues should be decided either by the legislature or the courts. Yes, the Governor agreed that perhaps the court was the best branch of government to settle the issue. First, all in 1982 the legislature mandated the Legislative Auditor to determine whether OHA is entitled to revenues derived from ceded lands under the control of the Department of

Transportation. In 1983, the Legislative Auditor filed a report entitled "Progress Report on the Public Land Trust" and made the following recommendations: 1. OHA is entitled to submerged land revenues; 2. OHA is entitled to revenues derived from ceded lands formerly underthecontrol of the federal government and subsequently, returned to the State; 3. Lands classified as former territoria! lands, but with ceded Iands status should be subject to the OHA entitlement; 4. Sand Island revenues; and finally 5. Harbor and airport ceded lands are subject also to the OHA entitlement. Despite the integrity of this report and the impartiality of Legislative Auditor Clinton Tanimura, the administration claims they are not bound by the report. Next, at the invitation of the Governor to settle the issue in court, OHA filed suit on the Molokai Sand Mining issue. The State countered with a elaim that OH A is unconstitutional. Then, when O H A files suit on the DOT issue, the State claims O H A lacks consent to sue the State. Now, OHA is the State agency saddled with the responsibility of administering the Public Land Trust entitlements. If the State is withholding monies due the trust, the OHA Trustees have a duty at law to pursue and enforce these entitlements or else, we as T rustees, are liable to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries to account for the trust ineome. The administration's view of the issue is seen as benefiting only Hawaiians and that the eoneem is "for all the eommunity". This is double talk. In fact, the revenues whieh is the subject of eontention would benefit the Department of Education four times more than OHA, since 20 percent goes to OHA and 80 percent is allocated for the support of the pub!ic schools. It is ironic that the administration is advocating the diversion of DOT revenues from the Public Land Trust — revenues whieh could have benefitted the children of all people in the state.